IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE

Irrig. and Drain. 59: 203214 (2010)

Published online 22 October 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ird.453

EFFECTS OF SALINITY ON EGGPLANT (SOLANUM MELONGENA L.)

GROWTH AND EVAPOTRANSPIRATIONy

ALI UNLUKARA1*, AHMET KURUNC2, GULUZAR DUYGU KESMEZ3,

ENGIN YURTSEVEN3 AND DONALD L. SUAREZ4z
1
Gaziosmanpasa University, Agricultural Faculty, Department of Agricultural Structures and Irrigation, Tokat, Turkey
2
Akdeniz University, Agricultural Faculty, Department of Agricultural Structures and Irrigation, Antalya, Turkey
3
Ankara University, Agricultural Faculty, Department of Agricultural Structures and Irrigation, Ankara, Turkey
4
USDA-ARS-US Salinity Laboratory, Riverside, CA, USA

ABSTRACT
The effects of irrigation water salinity on eggplant growth, yield, water consumption and mineral matter
accumulation in leaves and fruits were investigated with a greenhouse experiment. For this purpose, five saline
irrigation waters with electrical conductivities of 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 5.0, 7.0 dS m
1 and tap water as a control treatment
were utilized. Throughout the experiment, the amounts of irrigation water to be applied were determined based on
the weight changes of each pot. After irrigation the amount of drainage water volume was measured in drain pans
placed underneath each pot. We calculated the plant water consumption from the water budget information.
Threshold soil salinity and slope values of the yield response to soil salinity level were determined as <1.5 dS m
1
and 4.4 respectively for fruit yield and 6.7 dS m
1 and 3.7 for the vegetative dry weight. The fruit yield results
revealed that eggplant was moderately sensitive to salinity. Plant water consumption and water use efficiency
decreased with increasing salinity. The crop yield coefficient (Ky) was 2.3. Salinity caused a decrease in K content,
and increased Cl content of leaves. Although mineral concentration of the leaves did respond to increased mineral
concentration of irrigation water, mineral concentration of fruits did not. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley &
Sons, Ltd.
key words: greenhouse; water use efficiency; yield; salt tolerance

Received 30 May 2007; Revised 28 July 2008; Accepted 28 July 2008

RESUME
Les effets de la salinite de leau dirrigation sur la croissance de laubergine, le rendement, la consommation deau
et laccumulation de matieres minerales dans les feuilles et les fruits ont ete etudies dans une experience sous serre.
A cette fin, cinq niveaux de salinite ont ete utilises avec une conductivite electrique de 1,5, 2,5, 3,5, 5,0, 7,0 dS m
1
et leau du robinet comme traitement de controle. Tout au long de lexperience, la quantite deau dirrigation a
appliquer a ete determinee en fonction de la modification du poids de chaque pot. Apres chaque irrigation le volume
de drainage a ete mesure dans des recipients places sous chaque pot. Nous avons calcule la consommation deau de
la plante a partir du bilan hydrique. Le seuil de la salinite du sol et la pente de la courbe de reponse du rendement au
niveau de salinite ont ete determines comme etant <1,5 dS m
1 et 4,4 respectivement pour le rendement en fruit et
6,7 dS m
1 et 3,7 pour le poids de matiere seche. Le resultat sur le rendement en fruits montre que laubergine est
moderement sensible a la salinite. La consommation deau des plantes et lefficacite de lutilisation de leau ont

* Correspondence to: Dr. Ali Unlukara, Gaziosmanpasa University, Agricultural Faculty, Department of Agricultural Structures and Irrigation,
60250 Tasliciftlik, Tokat-Turkey. E-mail: unlukara@gop.edu.tr
y
Effets de la salinite sur la croissance et levapotranspiration de laubergine (Solanum melongena L.).
z
The contribution of D. L. Suarez to this article was prepared as part of his official duties as a United States Federal Government employee.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

204 A. UNLUKARA ET AL.

diminue avec laugmentation de la salinite. Le coefficient de rendement des cultures (Ky) etait de 2,3. La salinite a
cause une diminution du contenu des feuilles en K et une augmentation en Cl. Bien que la concentration en
mineraux des feuilles ait repondu a laugmentation de concentration en mineraux de leau dirrigation, ce na pas
ete le cas pour la concentration en mineraux des fruits. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
mots cles: serre; efficacite de lutilisation de leau; rendement; tolerance au sel

INTRODUCTION
Soil salinity is one of the major constraints in the development of irrigated agriculture in arid and semi-arid regions
in the world. Every year about 40 000 ha of land becomes unavailable for agricultural production because of
salinization throughout the world. In addition, reports prepared by specialized agencies of the United Nations
indicate that about 50% of the irrigated area of the world is either salinized or is potentially affected by salinity.
Salinity problems can be severe in arid and semi-arid regions since precipitation is not sufficient and water supplies
are also scarce as compared to water needs for crop production (Lamsal et al., 1999).
Global constraints on freshwater supplies and the need to dispose of agricultural, municipal and industrial waste
waters have intensified interest in water reuse options. In many instances, the value of the water is decreased solely
because of its higher salt concentration. Although quantitative information on crop salt tolerance exists for over
130 crop species, there are many vegetables which lack definitive data. Accurate scheduling of irrigation is essential
for maximizing crop production while conserving water and ensuring irrigation systems are environmentally and
economically sustainable. Correct scheduling requires a good knowledge of crop tolerance to salinity, crop water
demand and soil water characteristics and must account for the type of irrigation method used (Theiveyanathan
et al., 2004).
The prediction of crop yield in relation to water requirement or evapotranspiration is important for irrigation
project planning and evaluation. Considerable research has been given to the development of simple models for
predicting crop yield from evapotranspiration during the growing season (Doorenbos and Kassam, 1986; Howel
and Musick, 1985; Ouda et al. 2006). Different conditions for evapotranspiration were obtained by applying
different soil moisture regimes (Letey and Dinar, 1986), but rarely by using saline water (Katerji et al., 1998).
Salts in the soil water solution can reduce evapotranspiration by making soil water less available for plant root
extraction. Salts have an affinity for water and hence additional force is required for the crop to extract water from a
saline soil. The presence of salts in the soil water solution reduces the potential energy of the soil water solution (Allen
et al., 1998). For example Yurtseven et al. (2005) irrigated tomato plants with four different irrigation water salinity
levels (0.25, 2.5, 5.0 and 10 dS m
1) and concluded that increased salinity levels in irrigation water caused decreases
in water consumption of the crop. Compared with the control treatment, the decreases in water consumption were 21,
35 and 56% for the 2.5, 5.0 and 10 dS m
1 salinity levels respectively. In this instance it is possible to decrease the
amount of water to be applied in saline soils or irrigations using saline water. Failure to account for the decrease in
evapotranspiration will cause an excess of drainage water and other environmental problems.
Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) is a traditional vegetable crop in many tropical, subtropical and
Mediterranean countries. Conflicting literature exists on eggplant tolerance to soil salinity. For example, eggplant is
classified as a moderately sensitive vegetable crop (Maas, 1984), whereas Bresler et al. (1982) classified it as salt-
sensitive vegetable. We propose that this difference in its tolerance could be related to the varieties or cultivars used
and to the different environmental conditions in those studies. In order to provide proper management, it is
necessary to know the growth, yield and water consumption of the crop. The purpose of the present research was to
obtain data on eggplant grown under 0.75, 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 5.0 and 7.0 dS m
1 salinity levels and determine the salinity
effect on yield, plant growth, water consumption and mineral matter accumulation on fruit and leaves.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

To evaluate the effects of different salinity levels in irrigation water on growth, yield, and water consumption of
eggplant, an experiment was carried out in a glasshouse at Gaziosmanpasa University. The geographic coordinates

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 203214 (2010)
 SALINITY EFFECT ON EGGPLANT 205

of the experimental area are 408 200 0700 N and 368 280 2600 E. The glasshouse was a Venlo-type greenhouse
ventilated naturally with side and ridge openings. Its length, width and floor area were 13.3 m, 10.0 m and 133 m2.
We utilized the Kemer cultivar of eggplant. This is the most common eggplant cultivar and is widely consumed as
a fresh vegetable in Turkey. The Kemer cultivar is commonly grown in either fields or greenhouses. The fruit of this
cultivar is about 1418 cm in length, dark purple in colour and has small seeds. Plant height of the cultivar is about
7080 cm. Yield per hectare is between 30 and 40 t (Vural et al., 2000).
The experiment was set up as a completely randomized design with five replications per treatment. In addition to
the control treatment (tap water, T0) with an electrical conductivity of 0.75 dS m
1, five irrigation waters with
different electrical conductivities (ECi) were used (T1 1.5, T2 2.5, T3 3.5, T4 5.0 and T5 7.0 dS m
1).
During the preparation of saline waters, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) values of each treatment were maintained
less than 5.0 in order to avoid the adverse effect of increasing SAR on soil structure and water gas movement. The
salts were prepared by adding approximately equal amounts of Na, Ca and Mg, to the base concentrations in the
control. To do this, calculated amounts of CaCl2, MgSO4 and NaCl were mixed to prepare irrigation water with
given salinity for each treatment. Composition of the irrigation water is shown in Table I.
The soil was collected from a nearby field and sieved through a 4 mm screen to remove large particles and dry soil
aggregates. A 45 kg sample of air-dried soil was placed in each of the pots with 35.6 dm3 in volume. Some physical
and chemical properties of the experimental soil are presented in Table II. Before transplanting, 19.3 g of potassium
sulphate (K2SO4), 14.0 g triple superphosphate (TSP), and 12.5 g diammonium phosphate (DAP) were applied to
each pot.
Eggplant seeds were sown on 12 April, germinated and raised under glasshouse conditions. When they had three
real leaves, uniform (in appearance) eggplant seedlings were transferred to plastic pots (one plant per pot) on
4 June. Until the plants were established, they were irrigated with tap water (also used as control treatment). After
establishment of plants (11 days after transplanting), saline water treatments were started. The pots were installed in
double rows on the ground. The plant spaces in the rows and the space between two rows were 75 cm and the space
between two double rows was 140 cm.
To determine the field capacity of each pot at the beginning of the experiment, pots were initially saturated with
tap water and the pots were covered in order to prevent evaporation. The water content of the pots after the drainage
stopped was assumed to be field capacity (WFC). Each pot was weighed before each irrigation event. The amount of
irrigation water to be applied was determined by weighing the pots just before irrigation. The amount of applied
irrigation water (I) was calculated by the following equation:

WFC
W
rw
I (1)
1
LF

where LF is leaching fraction, which was set to a target of 0.15 as suggested by Ayers and Westcot (1985) for
efficient irrigation, WFC is the pot weight at field capacity, W is the pot weight just before irrigation and rw is water
bulk density (1 kg dm3 or 1 kg l
1). A drain pan was placed underneath each pot to collect leachate. Collected
drainage water volume was measured after irrigation. Throughout the experiment, the plants were irrigated at 3
4 day intervals.

Table I. Irrigation water composition

EC Na K Ca Mg Total cation Cl SO4 Alk Total pH Osmotic SAR

(dS m
1) (me l
1) (me l
1) (me l
1) (me l
1) (me l
1) (me l
1) (me l
1) (me l
1) anion pressure
(M Pa)

0.76 1.2 0.08 4.3 3.0 8.5 0.8 6.01 0.84 7.7 6.69 0.03 0.6
1.5 6.6 0.08 6.1 5.0 17.8 8.1 8.01 0.84 17.0 6.68 0.06 2.8
2.5 11.1 0.08 9.0 8.2 28.4 15.5 11.2 0.84 27.5 6.67 0.10 3.8
3.5 15.7 0.08 12.8 12.4 41.0 23.9 15.4 0.84 40.2 6.68 0.14 4.4
5 21.6 0.08 19.4 19.7 60.7 36.4 22.7 0.84 59.9 6.65 0.20 4.9
7 25.9 0.08 26.4 27.6 80.1 48.2 30.3 0.84 79.4 6.64 0.25 5.0

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 203214 (2010)
206 A. UNLUKARA ET AL.

Table II. Some physical and chemical properties of the experimental soil

Particle size distribution

 Sand (%) 53.0
 Silt (%) 28.8
 Clay (%) 18.2
Soil water contents (dry weight basis)
 Saturation (%) 45.0
 Field capacity (%) 22.4
 Wilting point (%) 4.2
Bulk density (g cm
3) 1.56
Electrical conductivity (paste) (dS m
1) 0.63
pHe (paste) 7.3

Evapotranspiration volume (ET) between two consecutive irrigations was calculated by using the water balance
equation as follows:

Wn
Wn1
ET I
R (2)
rw

where Wn and Wn1 are the pot weights before the nth and n 1th irrigation (kg), rw is water bulk density (1 kg dm3
or 1 kg l
1), I and R are amounts of applied and drainage water (litres). In addition, the daily evapotranspiration
(mm) was calculated by dividing the determined ET volume for the irrigation interval by soil surface area and the
number of days between the irrigations.
We measured plant height and stem diameter in each treatment before terminating the experiment. The harvested
fruits were weighed as fresh and then oven-dried at 708C to a constant dry weight. The dried samples taken from
each pot were ground in a mill having a 0.5-mm sieve to determine the mineral content of the fruits. At the end of
the experiment (on 2 October), the plants were cut at 1 cm above the soil surface. Vegetative fresh and dry weights
(oven-dried at 708C to a constant weight) were obtained for each replication. Immediately after the plants were cut,
soil samples were taken from each pot. The plant roots were next removed from each pot by washing the soil inside
the pot. Length, fresh and dry weight of roots were measured.
Soil samples taken from each pot were air dried and crushed to pass through a 2-mm screen. Saturated soil pastes
were prepared, kept in the laboratory for 24 h, then saturation extracts were taken and electrical conductivities of
saturated soil extracts (ECe) were measured. The salt tolerance model suggested by Maas and Hoffman (1977) was
evaluated by the computer program developed by van Genuchten (1983) for fruit yield and vegetative dry weight.
Then the threshold soil salinity value and slope value beyond the threshold value were calculated for each of these
growth parameters. The salt tolerance model suggested by Maas and Hoffman (1977) is

Ya b
1
ECe
ECe threshold  (3)
Ym 100

where Ym is the maximum yield from control treatment (g), Ya is the actual yield from a salinity
treatment, ECe threshold is threshold soil salinity (dS m
1) beyond which yield decreases, ECe in this equation
is either the soil salinity of the extract or ECe threshold, whichever is greater (dS m
1) and b is the slope value which is
the percentage yield loss per unit increase in electrical conductivity of the saturated soil extract beyond the
threshold value.
We collected undamaged leaves at harvest to determine mineral content. These leaf samples were washed with
tap water and then distilled water in turn, then dried in an oven and ground. For the measurements of mineral
content, plant samples were ashed in a muffle furnace at 5008C for 6 h, dissolved in 5 ml of 2 M HNO3, and finally
diluted to 25 ml with distilled water. Extracts were filtered and stored in plastic vials until analysed. Sodium and K
were measured by flamephotometer (Jenway PFP7; ELE Instrument Co. Ltd. Mention of trade names and company
names in this manuscript does not imply any endorsement or preferential treatment by the USDA), and water

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 203214 (2010)
 SALINITY EFFECT ON EGGPLANT 207

extractable Cl was determined by potentiometric titration with AgNO3 as described by Lambert and DuBois
(1971).
The experimental data were analyzed using the SPSS statistical analysis software package (SPSS, 2002). The
General Linear Model (GLM) procedure was used to perform analysis of variance. Unless otherwise noted, all
statistical tests were performed at the 0.01 level of significance. Duncans multiple range test was used to separate
means.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effects of irrigation water salinity on soil salinity
Effects of irrigation water salinity on measured soil extract salinity values are given in Table III. The mean ECe
values increased with increasing salinity levels of applied irrigation water up to T2 treatment and then remained
relatively constant around EC 10 dS m
1 for T2, T3 and T4 treatments. The maximum ECe value (13.2 dS m
1)
was observed for the highest ECi treatment (T5), however it was not significantly different from those of the T2, T3,
and T4 treatments at 0.05 probability levels.
There was no significant difference among leaching fractions of treatments which indicate that we maintained a
constant leaching fraction with variable water consumption. Measured leaching fractions ranged from 0.13 to 0.14
(0.13 for T2, T3 and T5, and 0.14 for T0, T1 and T4 treatments). The ratios of ECe/ECi were 2.4, 2.6, 4.2, 2.9, 2.0 and
1.9 for T0, T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 treatments, respectively, which are higher than the expected value (1.7 times ECi for
a leaching fraction of 0.14, and assuming ECe 0.5  ECsw) according to Ayers and Westcot (1985). The reasons
for higher soil salinity values than expected may be due to bypass flow through the soilpot interface (edge flow) that
decreases the effectiveness of leaching. However, assuming that the bypass was similar for the various treatments then
constant leaching fractions and variable ECi values should have resulted in constant ECe/ECi values.
We consider the water budget data, based on measured values of irrigation and drainage water collected over the
entire growing season, to be more reliable than the ECe data. This seems reasonable since the samples for ECe were
collected at the end of the experiment and with only one composted sample per container. Subsequent analysis of
data related to soil EC will utilize the calculation of average soil EC from the relationship
ECsw ECiw ECd =2 (4)
and
ECe ECsw  usw =ue (5)
where ECsw is the soil water electrical conductivity at field capacity, ECiw and ECd are the electrical conductivities
of the irrigation and drainage water, usw and ue are the volumetric water contents at field capacity and saturation
point, respectively (Table II). Each treatment was irrigated considering the plant water needs. For higher salinity
irrigation water treatments (T4 and T5), plant growth was reduced even in the early stages of the experiment and
they utilized less water than the other treatments.

Table III. Electrical conductivity of soil extracts, irrigation, drainage and soil water

ECi (dS m
1) ECe (dS m
1) ECsw, (dS m
1) ECd (dS m
1) Correction factora ECe calculated

0.75 1.8 3.1 5.4 7.1 1.5

1.5 4.0 6.1 10.7 7.1 3.0
2.5 10.0 10.9 19.2 7.7 5.4
3.5 10.1 15.3 27.0 7.7 7.6
5.0 10.0 20.4 35.7 7.1 10.2
7.0 13.2 30.4 53.8 7.7 15.1

a
Correction factor 1/leaching fraction.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 203214 (2010)
208 A. UNLUKARA ET AL.

Table IV. Effect of irrigation water salinity on the experimental soils, water use and yield parameters

Analysis Treatments (dS m
1) Mean P>F

T0 (0.75) T1 (1.5) T2 (2.5) T3 (3.5) T4 (5.0) T5 (7.0)


ECe (dS m-1) 1.8#,b, 4.0b 10.0a 10.1a 10.0a 13.2a 8.3
LF 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14 NS

ET (lt) 118a 113a 104b 98b,c 95c 83d 102

Yield (g pot-1) 566a 491a,b 388b,c 361b,c 302c,d 211d 375
Number of Fruit 3.6 3.0 3.2 3.2 3.2 2.4 3.1 NS

Fruit dry matter ratio (%) 8.0b 9.2a,b 8.2b 8.8b 10.1a 10.0a 8.9

#
Each value is the mean of five replications.

Within rows, means followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Duncans multiple range test at 0.05 significance
level.
,
significant at the 0.01 and 0.05 probability levels, respectively.
NS: non-significant.

Effects of irrigation water salinity on yield

Eggplant fruit yields were affected significantly by irrigation water salinity treatments at the 0.01 probability
level (Table IV). Increasing salinity of the applied irrigation water caused decreases in fruit yields. The highest fruit
yield (566 g pot
1) was obtained from the control treatment, which was significantly different from all but the T1
treatment. The lowest yield (211 g pot
1) was observed from the T5 treatment as expected. Compared to the control
treatment, percent yield reduction was 13, 31, 36, 47 and 63 for T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 treatments, respectively.
In a hydroponic study Chartzoulakis and Loupassaki (1996) used six solutions with 1.2 dS m
1 (0 mmol added
NaCl), 1.9 dS m
1 (10 mmol NaCl), 3.4 dS m
1 (25 mmol NaCl), 5.7 dS m
1 (50 mmol NaCl), 9.4 dS m
1
(100 mmol NaCl) and 12.2 dS m
1 (150 mmol NaCl) electrical conductivities on eggplant growth. They determined
yield decreases of 23, 41, 69 and 88% for EC 3.4, 5.7, 9.4 and 12.2 dS m
1 treatments, respectively. They
evaluated these data according to the classification proposed by Maas and Hoffman (1977), however they
considered only the ECi without consideration of ECe or ECsw, thus salt tolerance cannot be precisely determined.
Based on the classification, the eggplant hybrid Delica is moderately sensitive to salinity with a low threshold EC
value (1.9 dS m
1).
The salt tolerance model for fruit yield of eggplant is presented in Figure 1 by using the calculated ECe values
obtained from each treatment. The linear model revealed that there was reduction in eggplant fruit yield even for the
control (ECe 1.5 dS m
1). The yield decrease (slope) was 4.4% per unit increase in ECe. Based on these results, the
Kemer cultivar of eggplant is considered moderately sensitive to salinity.
Fruit numbers were not significantly affected by irrigation water salinity treatments at 0.05 probability level
(Table IV). Considering these results, it is apparent that soil salinity in this range has an important determinative
effect on fruit yield of eggplant but not on fruit number. In other words, decreased yield of eggplant was not a result

Figure 1. Salt tolerance model for relative fruit yield of eggplant

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 203214 (2010)
 SALINITY EFFECT ON EGGPLANT 209

Table V. Effect of irrigation water salinity on plant properties

Analysis Treatments (dS m
1) Mean P>F

T0 (0.75) T1 (1.5) T2 (2.5) T3 (3.5) T4 (5.0) T5 (7.0)


Plant height (cm) 61b 71a 62b 59b 55b 48c 59
Stem dia. (mm) 11.6 11.6 11.5 10.7 10.6 10.4 11.1 NS
Root length (cm) 54.4 72.0 64.0 60.0 51.2 54.4 58.9 NS

Vegetative. dry weight (g/plant) 27.1a,b 34.2a 25.7b 24.5b 22.4b 20.5b 25.4
Root dry weight (g/plant) 16.1 18.6 15.0 14.6 16.5 14.4 15.8 NS


significant at 0.05 probability level.
NS: non-significant.

of decreased fruit number in plant but decreased mean fruit weight. This result is in agreement with Shalhevet et al.
(1983) who concluded that increasing salinity caused a decrease in individual fruit weight of eggplant. They
obtained a 50% yield decrement at ECe of 8.5 dS m
1. Also, Savvas and Lenz (2000) stated that the detrimental
effects of moderate salinity on the yield of hydroponically grown eggplants are due only to a decreased mean fruit
weight. This yield response of eggplant was observed at EC values up to 8.1 dS m
1.
Fruit dry matter ratio increased with increasing salinity (Table IV). The T4 and T5 treatments have the higher dry
matter ratios than the T0, T2 and T4 treatments, statically. The control treatment has the lowest dry matter ratio
(8.0%), but the T4 treatment has the highest (10.1%).

Effects of irrigation water salinity on vegetative growth

According to the results of many studies, plants may differ in their salinity response to fruit yield, vegetative
growth and root development. The vegetative dry weight of the eggplant decreased with increasing soil salinity
except for the T1 treatment (Table V). But it is not unusual to observe an increase in yield with an initial increase in
salinity. For example, Andriolo et al. (2005) observed a positive effect of low EC on shoot fresh mass of lettuce,
which increased 28.5% from 0.8 to 1.9 dS m
1, and then decreased 16.5% from 1.9 to 4.7 dS m
1. The positive
effect of low salinity on shoots of several plants has been reported by many other authors (Brown and Berstein,
1953, Feinerman et al., 1982, Hoffman et al., 1983). The cause is not known but could be related to mineral
nutrition. The experimental data for the vegetative dry weights were used to develop a salt tolerance model
(Figure 2). Root development was not used for this purpose since there was no significant difference among root dry
weights of treatments (Table V). The threshold and slope salt tolerance values were 6.7 dS m
1 and 3.7%,
respectively, for the vegetative dry weight of eggplant. The threshold and slope value for vegetative growth were
higher than those for fruit yield. These results show that fruit yield and vegetative growth of eggplant have different
responses to salinity, with fruit yield being more sensitive.
There is a statistically significant difference among treatments for plant heights at the 0.05 probability level. As
presented in Table V, the highest plant height (71 cm) was measured for the T1 treatment and the lowest for the T5

Figure 2. Salt tolerance model for vegetative dry weight of eggplant

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 203214 (2010)
210 A. UNLUKARA ET AL.

Figure 3. Effects of irrigation water salinity on daily evapotranspiration

treatment (48 cm); these were significantly different from each other and from the height of the other treatments.
However, increased ECe or ECi did not have a significant effect on plant stem diameter, root length and root dry
weight at the 0.05 probability level (Table V).
Effects of irrigation water salinity on plant water consumption
Evapotranspiration values were calculated by using Equation (2) and total ET values for each treatment. As
shown in Table IV, the ET values ranged from 118 l pot
1 for the control treatment to 83 l pot-1 for the highest
irrigation water salinity treatment. The ET of the control treatment did not significantly differ from that of the T1
treatment. The ET results were consistent with the soil salinities, irrigation water and calculated salinities
(Table III). The ET values decreased by 11, 17, 19 and 29% for T2, T3, T4, and T5 treatments, respectively.
Changes in ET values among treatments throughout the experiment are presented in Figure 3. Since the same soil
material was used for the experiment, soil salinity levels were initially the same for all replications and treatments
(0.63 dS m
1). Following the saline irrigation water application 11 days after transplanting, plants were subjected
to continuously increasing soil salinity. After a few irrigations, differences in water consumptions of treatments
became evident and gradually increased. Figure 3 shows that, at the beginning of the experiment, daily ET values
for all treatments were about 2.1 mm. Daily ET values reached their maximum value during 2665 days after the
experiment was initiated (between calendar days 192 and 231). During this period daily ET values were 4.1, 3.8,
3.6, 3.3, 3.1 and 2.7 mm for T0, T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 treatments, respectively. Similarly, daily ET values were 1.2,
1.2, 1.0, 0.9, 0.9 and 0.8 mm for the treatments between the last irrigation and harvest. Daily ET values of plants
were relatively high. In mid-season when the highest ET was realized, there is a 1.4 mm day
1 difference between
the ET values of the control and the T5 treatment. The daily water consumption of plants in the T5 treatment in mid-
season was 34% lower than that of the control treatment.
There was a very high negative relation (R2
0.98) between soil salinity and total water consumption of the
plants, as illustrated in Figure 4. Plant water consumption decreased by 2.1% for per unit increase in soil salinity.
Excess salinity within the root zone has a deleterious effect on plant growth which was manifested as nearly
equivalent reductions in the transpiration and growth rates (Rhoades et al., 1992).
Decreases in plant water consumption due to salinity should be taken into account when irrigating in order to
prevent excess water applications and excess leaching.
Stewart and Hagan (1973) proposed a model to predict crop yield from evapotranspiration during the plant
growing season. The relation between relative evapotranspiration and relative yield decreases for water stress with
yield response factor (Ky) has been used to evaluate plant tolerance to water stress (Doorenbos and Kassam, 1986).
If Ky  1, the plant is tolerant and if Ky  1, the plant is sensitive to water stress. Some scientists have also used this
method for salinity (Stewart et al., 1977; Shalhevet, 1994; Katerji et al., 1998). The model was used to predict
eggplant yield under saline conditions:
Ym
Ya ETm
ETa
Ky (6)
Ym ETm

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 203214 (2010)
 SALINITY EFFECT ON EGGPLANT 211

Figure 4. Relationship between soil salinity and relative evapotranspiration

where Ym and ETm are maximum crop yield and evapotranspiration for non-saline or control treatment, Ky is crop
yield coefficient, Ya and ETa are actual crop yield and evapotranspiration respectively for saline treatments. In our
irrigation salinity experiment, the relationship between relative fruit yield and relative evapotranspiration of
eggplant is shown in Figure 5. From this figure, a strong linear relationship (R2 0.97) is observed with a slope of
2.3. This high Ky value indicates that eggplant is highly sensitive to water stress caused by salinity.
Water use efficiency (WUE) is an important indicator for plant water use. Results of an ANOVA test showed
significant differences among treatments for WUE. Increased salinity in irrigation water resulted in decreases in
WUE (Figure 6). The lowest WUE was obtained for the highest salinity level treatment (T5) which was significantly
different from those of the T0 and T1 treatments. Further increases in irrigation water salinity above 5.0 dS m
1 led
to significant reductions of water use efficiency of the plants. Fresh fruit weights per litre water use were 4.8 and
2.5 g l
1 for T0 and T5 treatments, respectively. With increased soil salinity, fruit yields and plant water
consumption decreased.

Figure 5. Relationship between relative yield and relative evapotranspiration

Figure 6. Effects of irrigation water salinity on water use efficiency of eggplant

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 203214 (2010)
212 A. UNLUKARA ET AL.

Table VI. Effect of irrigation water salinity on plant mineral uptake

Analysis Treatments (dS m
1) Mean P>F

T0 (0.75) T1 (1.5) T2 (2.5) T3 (3.5) T4 (5.0) T5 (7.0)


%Cl of leaf dry matter 1.15b 1.18b 1.31b 1.25b 1.27b 1.75a 1.33

%Ca of leaf dry matter 1.56b 1.63b 1.64b 1.50b 1.50b 2.40a 1.71

%K of leaf dry matter 2.75a 2.59a,b 2.30b,c 2.39a,b 2.54a,b 2.01c 2.42

%Mg of leaf dry matter 0.74b,c 0.72c 0.97a,b,c 1.0a,b,c 1.03a,b 1.10a 0.94
%Na of leaf dry matter 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.17 0.24 0.11 NS
%Ca of fruit dry matter 0.55 0.58 0.50 0.60 0.47 0.50 0.54 NS
%K of fruit dry matter 3.83 3.49 4.05 4.12 3.57 3.66 3.82 NS
%Mg of fruit dry matter 0.33 0.27 0.24 0.18 0.20 0.30 0.25 NS
%Na of fruit dry matter 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.07 0.13 0.08 NS

#
Each value is the mean of five replications.
,
significant at the 0.01 and 0.05 probability levels, respectively.
NS: non-significant.

Effects of irrigation water salinity on mineral matter contents of fruits and leaves
Increasing salinity resulted in increased ion content in the leaves for all ions except K which decreased with
salinity. These results are consistent with the increasing concentration of all ions (except K which was constant) in
the irrigation water with increasing salinity. The differences were not significant among treatments for Na, but the
salinity level of applied irrigation water significantly affected Cl, Ca, and K contents of leaves at the 0.01
probability level and Mg content at the 0.05 probability level (Table VI). Accumulation of Cl causes toxic effects on
plant leaves. Salt injury symptoms such as chlorosis, burning of leaf margins and necrosis were not observed in
plants throughout the experiment. Compared to other treatments, only the T5 treatment altered the Cl content of
leaves (Table VI).
Aknc et al. (2004) reported that increasing NaCl in the solution led to a decrease in the K/Na ratio and increased
Na in several eggplant varieties. Their investigation showed that as NaCl concentration increased, Na content
increased in leaves indicating that the eggplant (which has a glycophytic reaction) could not control uptake of Na.
In our experiment K content was slightly decreased with increasing salinity level in irrigation water (Table VI).
There was a weak relationship (R2 0.18) between soil salinity and K content of leaves. The highest (2.75%) K
content in leaves was observed in control treatment whereas the lowest (2.01%) was in T5 treatment (Table VI).
The highest Mg content (1.10%) in leaves was observed for T5 treatment which was not significantly different
from those of the T2, T3 and T4 treatments, whereas the lowest (0.74%) was for the control treatment which was not
significantly different from that of T1 treatment (Table VI). Similar to Cl and K content in leaves, there was a weak
positive relationship (R2 0.29) between soil salinity and Mg content of leaves. Savvas and Lenz (2000)
investigated effects of NaCl or nutrient-induced salinity on growth, yield, and composition of eggplants grown in
rockwool and they found that all salinity treatments reduced the concentration of Mg in the leaves to the same
degree, thus indicating that this salt effect is not ion-specific. In this study, the reason for increased Mg content in
leaves may be as a result of Mg addition as part of added salts with irrigation practices. Increasing Mg content with
increasing salinity is a typical characteristic of natural waters.
There were no significant differences in the ion content of the fruit with increasing salinity, suggesting that there
is a restriction to salt translocation to the fruit.

CONCLUSIONS
In this study we investigated relations between irrigation water salinity, fruit yield, plant growth parameters, and
water consumption of eggplant. The salt tolerance model parameters for the vegetative dry weights were different

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 203214 (2010)
 SALINITY EFFECT ON EGGPLANT 213

from that of the fruit yield. Threshold values of 1.5 and 6.7 dS m
1 were determined for fruit yield and vegetative
dry weight, respectively. Threshold ECe values indicated that fruit yield was more sensitive to salinity than
vegetative growth in eggplant. The slope value of 4.4% was obtained for the fruit yield whereas it was 3.7% for the
vegetative dry weight. Considering the results for fruit yield, eggplant is moderately sensitive to salinity.
Increased soil salinity resulted in a decrease in water consumption of the plant and thus a decreased growth rate.
A high value of the Ky coefficient (2.3) which shows the relationship between relative decrease in plant water
consumption and relative decrease in yield, also indicates that eggplant is sensitive to water stress caused by
salinity. Irrigation water salinity increased soil salinity and increased soil salinity caused a decrease in ET. The ET
value for the T5 treatment was about 29% less than that of the control treatment. Therefore it is suggested that
salinity effects should be taken into account in water consumption calculations to prevent over-applications of
saline waters and yield loss. The water use efficiency decreased with increasing salinity, indicating that for eggplant
under saline conditions, more water is used per unit of production as compared to non-saline conditions.

REFERENCES

Aknc IE, Aknc S, Ylmaz K, Dkc H. 2004. Response of eggplant varieties (Solanum melongena) to salinity in germination and seedling
stages. New Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science 32: 193200.
Allen RG, Pereria LS, Raes D, Smith M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and
Drainage Paper No. 56, Rome.
Andriolo JL, Luz GL, Witter MH, Godoi RS, Barros GT, Bortolotto OC. 2005. Growth and yield of lettuce plants under salinity. Horticultura
Brasileira, Braslia 23(4): 931934.
Ayers RS, Westcot DW. 1985. Water quality for agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29, Rev. 1, Rome.
Bresler E, McNeal BL, Carter DL. 1982. Saline and Sodic Soils. Springer-Verlag: Berlin.
Brown JW, Berstein L. 1953. Salt Tolerance of Grasses: Effects of Variations in Concentrations of Sodium, Calcium, Sulfate and Chloride. US
Salinity Laboratory Report to Collaborators, Riverside, Calif; 4446.
Chartzoulakis KS, Loupassaki MH. 1996. Effects of NaCl salinity on germination, growth, gas exchange and yield of greenhouse eggplant.
Agricultural Water Management 32: 215225.
Doorenbos J, Kassam AH. 1986. Yield response to water. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 33, Rome.
Feinerman E, Yaron D, Bielorai H. 1982. Linear crop response functions to salinity with a threshold salinity level. Water Resources Research 18:
101106.
Hoffman GJ, Maas EV, Pritchard TL, Meyer JL. 1983. Salt tolerance of corn in the SacramentoSan Joaquin Delta of California. Irrigation
Science 4: 3144.
Howel TA, Musick JT. 1985. Relationship of dry matter production of field crops to water consumption. In Crop Water Requirements, Perrier A,
Riou Ch (eds). INRA: Paris; 247269.
Katerji N, van Hoorn JW, Hamdy A, Mastrorilli M, Karam F. 1998. Salinity and drought, a comparison of their effects on the relationship
between yield and evapotranspiration. Agricultural Water Management 36: 4554.
Lambert RS, DuBois RJ. 1971. Spectrophotometric determination of nitrate in the presence of chloride. Analytical Chemistry 43(1971): 494
501.
Lamsal K, Paudyal GN, Saeed M. 1999. Model for assessing impact of salinity on soil water availability and crop yield. Agricultural Water
Management 41: 5770.
Letey J, Dinar A. 1986. Simulated crop-water production functions for several crops when irrigated with saline waters. Hilgardia 54: 132.
Maas EV. 1984. Salt tolerance of plants. In The Handbook of Plant Science in Agriculture, Christie BR (ed.). CEC Press: Boca Raton, Fla.
Maas EV, Hoffman GJ. 1977. Crop salt tolerance current assessment. ASCE, Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division 103(IRZ): 115
134.
Ouda SA, Khalil FA, Tantawy MM. 2006. Predicting the impact of water stress on the yield of different maize hybrids. Research Journal of
Agriculture and Biological Sciences 2(6): 369374.
Rhoades JD, Kandiah A, Mashali AM. 1992. The use of saline waters for crop production. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 48, Rome.
Savvas D, Lenz F. 2000. Effects of NaCl or nutrient-induced salinity on growth, yield, and composition of eggplants grown in rockwool. Scientia
Horticulturae 84: 3747.
Shalhevet J. 1994. Using water of marginal quality for crop production: major issues. Agricultural Water Management 25: 233269.
Shalhevet J, Heuer B, Meiri A. 1983. Irrigation interval as a factor in the salt tolerance of eggplant. Irrigation Science 4(2): 8393.
Stewart JL, Hagan RM. 1973. Functions to predict effects of crop water deficits. ASCE, Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division 99: 421
439.
Stewart JL, Danielson RE, Hanks RJ, Jackson EB, Hagon RM, Pruitt WO, Franklin WT, Riley JP. 1977. Optimizing Crop Production through
Control of Water and Salinity Levels in the Soil. Utah Water Research Lab. PR. 151-1, Logan, Utah.
SPSS. 2002. SPSS for Windows, Release 11.5.0. SPSS Inc.: Chicago, Ill.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 203214 (2010)
214 A. UNLUKARA ET AL.

Theiveyanathan S, Ben von RG, Marcar NE, Mvers BJ, Polglase PJ, Falkiner RA. 2004. An irrigation-scheduling model for application of saline
water to tree plantation. Forest Ecology and Management 193: 97112.
Van Genuchten MTH. 1983. Analyzing Crop Salt Tolerance Data: Model Description and Users Manual. Research Report No. 120. USDA
ARS, US Salinity Laboratory: Riverside, Calif.
Vural H, Esiyok D, Duman I. 2000. Cultivated Vegetables (Vegetable Production). Ege University Press: Bornova, Izmir (in Turkish).
Yurtseven E, Kesmez GD, Unlukara A. 2005. The effects of water salinity and potassium levels on yield, fruit quality and water consumption of a
native Central Anatolian tomato species (Lycopersicon esculentum). Agricultural Water Management 78: 128135.

Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 59: 203214 (2010)